Guildwars

[Pestilence]

Why have a guildwar? I think it should be a way for when talking isn\'t helping on who is right. Specially with evil guilds and good guilds oposing eachother there should be some violence sometimes. Wouldn\'t be very realistic otherwise

But how do you know who won in the end? I think there should be a way that determines who won the war when it ends. If it\'s most kills or something more refined like a spot that has to be held for so long, but I feel there should be a winner given by the server so not to get that both sides claim victory and the war not resulting in anything.

[shorty13]

yeah have a kill counter and make it so the war is over whenever (challenging leader gets to choose):
1) a specified number of kills have been reached; first guild to this number wins
2) the challenging guild leader sets an amount of time for the war to last, and when it is over, the guild with the most kills wins.

[DaveG]

Yeah, the lack of a definite end to these things has been brought up before.  It\'s fairly obvious what is needed here, it\'s just that no one has bothered to work on it.    It\'s not really that important of a feature at this point.  (our current focus of development is not combat)

[zanzibar]

Originally posted by Pestilence
Why have a guildwar? I think it should be a way for when talking isn\'t helping on who is right. Specially with evil guilds and good guilds oposing eachother there should be some violence sometimes. Wouldn\'t be very realistic otherwise

But how do you know who won in the end? I think there should be a way that determines who won the war when it ends. If it\'s most kills or something more refined like a spot that has to be held for so long, but I feel there should be a winner given by the server so not to get that both sides claim victory and the war not resulting in anything.

It\'s obvious that you haven\'t been in a guild war before...

You don\'t know what you\'re talking about, so don\'t make a post about it....

Whoever yields in the war first gives a \"karma point\" to the other guild.....

Plus, you RP the victory.....

[Pestilence]

Obviously you don\'t know what you are talking about Zanzibar.

I have been in wars and I have seen many times both sides claiming victory. Also RPed.

So please just don\'t reply.

[zanzibar]

Originally posted by Pestilence
Obviously you don\'t know what you are talking about Zanzibar.

I have been in wars and I have seen many times both sides claiming victory. Also RPed.

So please just don\'t reply.

There have been many times in history where both sides claim to be victorious.  The war of 1812 is such an example.

It is entirely within RP for two guilds to both claim victory.  If the game mechanics were changed to artificially and arbitrarily make such things black and white, it would be highly disruptive to role-playing.


You lose.  Again.

[DaveG]

Actually, that\'s a good point.  War should be ambiguous, to a point.  I think it just needs some sort of timeout, after a certain amount of time without active fighting.

[Pestilence]

hmm both sides claiming victory? Come on Shal. It might be true that that has happened sometimes, but those are the examples history teachers use to make fun of. It\'s definately not the norm as in most cases the facts show who looses territory or who is forced to do something against their will.

And even if there would be a killcount that appoints one the winner there would still be people not satified with that, perhaps becuase they feel their kills were only their weak members or perhaps they feel the difference wasn\'t big enough to call it a win.

Roleplaying you won when you didn\'t would still be possible, but you wouldn\'t be able to roleplay you won when you in fact were so greatly beaten if it wasn\'t roleplaying you would have been thrown in the nearest dungeon just to show you didn\'t.

And why do you have to keep playing it on the man Shal? Feeling inferior or something?

[Karyuu]

Originally posted by Pestilence
It might be true that that has happened sometimes, but those are the examples history teachers use to make fun of.

Not necessarily... As Zanzibar implied, there are times when too much decision-making falling onto game mechanics eliminates harmless control given to the players and thus enriching the world. Guild wars do not all have the same goal - it\'s not always about killing the most people, or claiming the most land, etc. To set one of these or similar end points as reasons for a victory (or defeat) feels too trapping. So yes we do need something clearer to help players make decisions concerning when a war has run its course, but without too much \"Side A won because of blah blah numbers yadda yadda!\" ;)

Frankly I\'ve no idea what specific suggestions to make on adjusting the system, but I\'m sure someone out there has \'em.

*edit* Can we stop stepping on each other\'s toes? Please do not post something if you know it is meant to irritate someone and draw them into a similar response.

[zanzibar]

Originally posted by Pestilence
hmm both sides claiming victory? Come on Shal. It might be true that that has happened sometimes, but those are the examples history teachers use to make fun of. It\'s definately not the norm as in most cases the facts show who looses territory or who is forced to do something against their will.

Territory?  Gaining territory is often the demise of an army.  Think Napolean versus Russia, or the advance of the Mongols.  The Mongol empire is probably a better example, since they collapsed after gaining a massive amount of territory but without really loosing it.

Originally posted by Pestilence
Roleplaying you won when you didn\'t would still be possible, but you wouldn\'t be able to roleplay you won when you in fact were so greatly beaten if it wasn\'t roleplaying you would have been thrown in the nearest dungeon just to show you didn\'t.

What about the battle of the Masada?  Those defending the Masada committed suicide so that the Romans wouldn\'t be able to claim their victory.  Who really lost the battle?  Who really won?




There are also many times where a country which is taken over has \"absorbed\" the conquerers.  Think France versus England a thousand years ago.... England and India, or the Mongols and India before them.






So again, your criteria doesn\'t work.  It isn\'t convincing.

[Pestilence]

Well I agree Karyuu that a killcounter is indeed somewhat iffy. The best thing I think would be if there would be a choice as to what will determine victory. Have several ways in witch a guildwar can be won and have the two guildleaders agree on one most fitting to the reason they are fighting.

Perhaps have multible kind of challenges or have a window like trade for guildwarchallenges

Ofcourse this may still be far in the future but seems like the best way in the end.

Territory? Gaining territory is often the demise of an army. Think Napolean versus Russia, or the advance of the Mongols. The Mongol empire is probably a better example, since they collapsed after gaining a massive amount of territory but without really loosing it.

the demise of an army indeed. In Napoleons case it\'s a clear example of him not being able to claim he won. He ofcourse could say that but the fact he was thrown in exile on an island makes this kinda unbelievable.

As for the mongols they collapsed, but not becuase of the loss of a battle. Guildwars should symbolise the battles. everything in between in the battles that influences things would still be roleplaying ofcourse so roleplaying could make a war never happen. Make an empire fall apart from within.

What about the battle of the Masada? Those defending the Masada committed suicide so that the Romans wouldn\'t be able to claim their victory. Who really lost the battle? Who really won?

There are also many times where a country which is taken over has \"absorbed\" the conquerers. Think France versus England a thousand years ago.... England and India, or the Mongols and India before them.

Well I would dare say they wouldn\'t have commited suicide if they wouldn\'t have been forced by the Romans. Making the Romans the victors even if there wasn\'t a battle, but again if there is no battle it still falls under roleplaying.

As for being absorbed. That happenes over many years. It\'s obviously something that falls under roleplaying as it happened after the battle, so again I don\'t see it as having baring on how guildwars as a gamemechanic should work.

[zanzibar]

The Romans didn\'t force them to commit suicide.  The Romans were kept at bay for months... they wanted a fight, and they wanted to take slaves.

[Pestilence]

It\'s how you look at it. They were forced to do something they obviously wouldn\'t do unless they felt it was hopeless. They chose what in their eyes was the lesser of two evils.

The suicides may have made the roman victory less, but you can hardly make a case that the romans lost the battle.

[zanzibar]

Originally posted by Pestilence
It\'s how you look at it. They were forced to do something they obviously wouldn\'t do unless they felt it was hopeless. They chose what in their eyes was the lesser of two evils.

The suicides may have made the roman victory less, but you can hardly make a case that the romans lost the battle.

I think you can make exactly the case that the Romans lost the battle.  A kind of mythos developed around those who died at the Masada; they became heroes, martyrs.  That sounds like a victory to me.

[Pestilence]

Again Zanziar thats the kind of victory that you could roleplay but has nothing to do with the gamemechanic of a war.

The batttle itself was obviously won. The fact that they before the romans broke through almost all killed themselves making an impression on people in PS would be roleplaying done after the battle and not the battle itself.

PS: and you could only call that a victory in if in the end the romans were defeated by those mythos and thats not the case.

*edit*

K back on topic then.

Ways a war could be fought.

killcounter. If it\'s a simple clash between two forces and the one that kills most wins

king of the hill. Have an area and the one who can keep out any enemy characters for the longest time has won. Symbolising where the fight is a clear terrotorial dispute.

Kill the king. killcount but then just one person or NPC. If it would be a person he should be replaced by an NPC when he logs of. Or possibly have an NPC that the guildleader can have follow him.

Timelimit. Not a diferent style but I think the guildleader should be able to put a timelimit on it when entering a war so they both know how long they have to score. This could symbolize the time it takes for the guard to break them up or for when reinforcements would come.

Any other ideas?

There\'s no need to double-post; editing a post bumps it and makes it show up as new anyway.